A Supply Chain View on Certification

Standards: Does Supply Chain

Certification Improve Performance
Outcomes?

Frank Wiengarten, George Onofrei, Paul Humphreys

and Brian Fynes

Abstract This paper aims to report the results of an empirical study, examining the
perceived performance implications of quality, environmental and occupational
health and safety certifications (i.e., ISO 9001, ISO 14001, and OHSAS 18001) at
the supply chain level considering certifications of both the buyer and supplier. To
assess the perceived performance implication of certifications at the supply chain
level we collected survey data in Ireland from manufacturing plants. Our results
indicate that certifications at the supply chain level lead to higher perceived per-
formance outcomes for environmental certifications (i.e., ISO 14001) and occu-
pational health and safety certifications (i.e., OHSAS 18001). However, our results
could not confirm our hypothesis that quality certification (i.e., 9001) at the supply
chain level leads to higher perceived quality performance. This study represents one
of the first attempts to assess the impact of certifications on its intended perfor-
mance dimensions at the supply chain level. The research takes into consideration
different certifications at both the buyer’s and supplier’s plant.

Keywords ISO 9001 ISO 14001 OHSAS 18001 Performance management

Buyer and supplier certification

F. Wiengarten
Department of Operations, Innovation and Data Sciences,
ESADE Business School, Sant Cugat, Spain
e-mail: frank.wiengarten@esade.edu
G. Onofrei (&)
School of Business, Letterkenny Institute of Technology, Letterkenny, Ireland
e-mail: george.onofrei@lyit.ie
P. Humphreys
Department of Management and Leadership, Ulster University Business School,
Newtownabbey, UK
e-mail: pk.humphreys@ulster.ac.uk
B. Fynes
School of Business, UCD Smurfit Graduate Business School,
Blackrock, Ireland
e-mail: b.fynes@ucd.ie

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018 193

I. Heras-Saizarbitoria (ed.), ISO 9001, ISO 14001, and New Management Standards,
Measuring Operations Performance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65675-5_11
194 F. Wiengarten et al.

1 Introduction

Supply chain and purchasing managers are constantly seeking for verification of
their suppliers’ performance in multiple performance dimensions. Managers have
frequently and successfully relied on external certifications such as ISO 9001, ISO
14001 and OHSAS 18001 in the supplier selection process. These certifications
have helped companies in the sourcing process to at least preselect and qualify a
pool of companies that have externally verified processes to ensure a minimum and
consistent level of quality, environmental and occupational health and safety
standards.
ISO 9001 specifies the requirements for a quality management system
(QMS) that an organization must fulfil to demonstrate its ability to consistently
provide products and services that meet applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements (ISO 2009a). Through the ISO 14001 standard companies implement
operational controls to manage environmental concerns that are aimed at improving
the efficient use of natural resources (ISO 2009b). The OHSAS 18001 certification
focuses on the area of occupational health and safety management systems
(OHSMS), concentrating on the wellbeing of the workforce (Marshall et al. 2016).
These three certification standards represent some of the most important standards
for manufacturing and service industries and are widely implemented globally (ISO
2013; OHSAS Project Group 2011). The primary goal of these certifications is to
achieve process compliance (Gray et al. 2015), which may result in enhancing
product and process performance as well as improving a firm’s reputation
(Wiengarten et al. 2013). In terms of the supply chain, these certifications provide a
signalling effect which reassures buyers that their suppliers are taking seriously
issues related to quality, environment and health and safety (Wiengarten et al.
2013).
The performance implications of these certifications have been extensively
explored in previous research (e.g., Melnyk et al. 2003; Corbett et al. 2005; Levine
and Toffel 2010; Sharma 2005; Boiral and Henri 2012; Lo et al. 2014). Although
negative or non-significant certification—performance relationships have been
found the general consensus in the literature indicates that certifications improve the
operational and financial performance of a company.
However, what has been explored to a much lesser extent is the extent of these
certifications on performance at the supply chain level. Certifications have been
applied by companies to signal their commitment and intention to enter new
markets or to expand market share (Wiengarten et al. 2013). However, these cer-
tification benefits on performance have been predominantly assessed solely from a
single (focal) company perspective, rather than considering the supply chain as the
level of analysis. This paper investigates the impact of certifications at the supply
chain level thorough comparing the performance implications of certifications.
Specifically, in this paper we explore the following research questions: To what
A Supply Chain View on Certification Standards: Does Supply … 195

extent is the buyer’s performance (in terms of quality, environmental and OHS
performance) affected by their key supplier’s ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and OHSAS
18001 certification?
To explore this research question we collected survey data in Ireland. Results
indicate that in terms of ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 the environmental and
occupational health and safety performance of a buyer is higher when their key
supplier is ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 certified compared to cases where the
supplier is not ISO 14001 or OHSAS 18001 certified. However, our results could
not confirm this in terms of ISO 9001 and quality performance. The quality per-
formance of the buyer was not higher when their key supplier was ISO 9001
certified as compared to cases when the key supply was not ISO 9001 certified. We
discuss these results in terms of the implications for practice and theory.

2 Literature Review

2.1 Certifications and Performance

In today’s competitive environment, firms understand the importance of stan-

dardized management systems (Abad et al. 2014) and their customers expect them
to seek certification of their products, services or operations. ISO 9001 is one of
the most common and established standards across industries (Lo et al. 2013).
Due to increased pressures from multiple stakeholders, such as customers, regu-
lators, government and non-governmental organisations, sustainability certifica-
tions in environmental (ISO 14001) and social (OHSAS 18001) management have
become globally diffused. As mentioned previously, extensive research has been
carried out at the plant level performance effects of these certifications
(Fernández-Muñiz et al. 2009; Qi et al. 2013; Singh et al. 2011; Gray et al. 2015).
There are mixed views, concerning the effective contribution of these certifica-
tions to plant performance. Although, several researchers highlight the positive
relationship between these certifications (ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and OHSAS
18001) and superior performance of certified companies, a number of studies
suggest that these standards are either “tick box” exercises or process orientated
with little impact on performance. It is important to note that the certification
process does not guarantee a particular plant performance level, but rather pre-
scribes the standardisation of the processes, that companies can use to enhance
specific performance dimensions (Bernardo et al. 2009). A summary of research
studies on the certifications (ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001) and their
effect on performance, as well as the dimensions used to estimate firm perfor-
mance, is presented in Table 1. The overall conclusion is that these certifications
affect company performance in a variety of ways.
196 F. Wiengarten et al.

Table 1 Impact of certifications on firm performance: summary of research

Certification Research study Does the Firm performance dimensions
type certification affect
performance?
yes/no
ISO 9001 Corbett et al. Yes Productivity improvements, market
(2005) benefits and financial performance
Morris (2006) No Financial performance
Han et al. (2007) No Various business performance
Benner and Yes Financial performance
Veloso (2008)
Dick et al. (2008) No Return on assets
Lafuente et al. Yes ROA, labour productivity
(2010)
Levine and Toffel Yes Rates for sales, employment, payroll,
(2010) and average annual earnings
Srivastav (2011) Yes Organisational effectiveness and
development
Starke et al. Yes Sales revenue, cost of goods sold,
(2012) asset turnover ratio
Lo et al. (2013) Yes Operational and financial
performance
Huo et al. (2014) Yes Product and process flow
management
Chatzoglou et al. Yes Quality awareness, operations
(2015) execution, market share, customer
satisfaction and sales revenue
ISO 14001 King et al. (2005) No Environmental performance
Potoski and Yes Environmental performance
Prakash (2005)
Barla (2007) No Reduction of emissions
Arimura et al. Yes Natural resource use, solid waste
(2008) generation, and wastewater effluent
Lam et al. (2011) No Environmental performance
Nishitani et al. Yes Pollution emissions
(2012)
Blackman (2012) No Environmental performance
Boiral and Henri Yes Environmental performance
(2012)
Zobel (2013) No Air emissions, water emissions,
resource use, energy use, and waste
Testa et al. (2014) Yes Pollution emission
Campos et al. Yes Environmental performance
(2015)
Arimura et al. Yes Environmental performance
(2016)
(continued)
A Supply Chain View on Certification Standards: Does Supply … 197

Table 1 (continued)
Certification Research study Does the Firm performance dimensions
type certification affect
performance?
yes/no
OHSAS Chang and Liang Yes Safety index score
18001 (2009)
Hohnen and Hasle Yes Safety standards
(2011)
Vinodkumar and Yes Safety management and employee
Bhasi (2011) behaviour
Choi et al. (2012) Yes Sales and ROA
Fernández-Muñiz Yes Safety behaviour, employee
et al. (2012b) satisfaction, and qualitative measures
of business competitiveness
Abad et al. (2013) Yes Safety and operating performance
Lo et al. (2014) Yes Safety, sales growth, labour
productivity, and profitability

2.2 Certifications at the Supply Chain Level

Operating globally and the increased market pressures, force companies to focus on
the overall supply chain impact of all triple bottom line dimensions: economic,
environmental and social issues (Wilhelm et al. 2016). In the past two decades,
supply chain management has been through a significant paradigm shift (Curkovic
and Sroufe 2011); businesses recognised that they cannot compete as an individual
entity, but rather using their supply chain (Lambert and Cooper 2000) and as a
result, firms established cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships with their
supply chain partners (Prajogo et al. 2012).
Rising external pressures from regulatory and societal bodies as well as cus-
tomers has encouraged companies to focus on their suppliers in ensuring sustain-
able multi-tier supply chains (Wilhelm et al. 2016). This is particularly the case in
manufacturing as they are perceived to have a greater social and environmental
impact, relative to other sectors (Gualandris and Kalchschmidt 2016). For example,
companies such as IKEA (Vachon and Klassen 2006), Sony Ericsson (Norrman and
Jansson 2004), Mattel (Hora et al. 2011) and Zara (Burgen and Phillips 2011) have
transferred these external sustainability pressures to their supply chain in order to
prevent negative publicity. Since 1994, in the car manufacturing sector, Ford,
General Motors and Chrysler now require all tool and equipment suppliers to obtain
QS-9000 certification, which is an auto-industry specific version of ISO 9000
(Hwang et al. 2006). Hence, one approach that is used by many buyer organisations
is to require that their suppliers should implement international management
standards, such as ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001. However, the auto-
motive example illustrated by Choi and Hong (2002), shows how difficult it is for
198 F. Wiengarten et al.

companies to manage and exert control over the lower-tier suppliers. These firms,
which are at the peripheral levels of the supply chain, tend to be small or medium
enterprises with limited resources and less exposure to these external pressures.
Therefore, the engagement with the first-tier supplier becomes paramount, in the
successful implementation and management of these certifications in the supply
chain (Grimm et al. 2014).
The literature on the impact of certifications at plant level is substantial, but less
is known about the effect at the supply chain level (Prajogo et al. 2012; Wiengarten
et al. 2013; Qi et al. 2013). In manufacturing industries, because they heavily rely
on suppliers, the success of buyers is largely dependent on the performance out-
comes of their suppliers (Krause et al. 2007). Therefore, further investigation is
required to understand the impact of these certifications on the performance, at the
supply chain level, specifically if the performance of the buyer is higher, when their
direct supplier is certified.

2.2.1 Performance Implications of ISO 9001

Several studies (Dick et al. 2008; Levine and Toffel 2010; Psomas et al. 2013) claim
that ISO 9001 certification improves both management practices and the perfor-
mance of internal processes, and these improvements ultimately affect the financial
performance. Levine and Toffel (2010) state that the sales turnover improvements
are a result of customers interpreting the ISO 9001 certification as a signal of
high-quality products or service.
Although ISO 9001 addresses both internal and external organisational pro-
cesses, there is an abundance of studies that have only examined the implemen-
tation effect at plant level, however research at supply chain level is limited
(Prajogo et al. 2012).
Singh et al. (2011) explored the use of the ISO 9001 standard as a tool to manage
the organizational environment, specifically the relationships between process
management (internal process, customer process and supplier process) and oper-
ating performance (as a measure of effectiveness). Their findings highlight that
selected dimensions of process management have a higher impact on operating
performance when considered collectively, rather than individually. A similar study
by Prajogo et al. (2012), investigated three levels of ISO 9001 implementation
(basic, advanced and supportive) on supply chain activities. Basic implementation
included the basic quality practices and principles; advanced implementation
reflected the philosophy of the standards; and supportive implementation repre-
sented the management system and supporting the basic and advanced imple-
mentation. The results show that both advanced and supportive implementations
have a positive effect on the operational performance. The basic implementation
displayed only an interactive effect, meaning that its influence depends on other
aspects of the implementation process, which might explain why some companies
do not gain benefits from the certification process. Hwang et al. (2006) provided
empirical support for the buyer’s increasing use of the ISO 9001 certification as an
A Supply Chain View on Certification Standards: Does Supply … 199

incentive for improving the supplier’s quality. They found that buyers prefer the
ISO 9001 certification process over the appraisal process (the traditional inspection
regime) when dealing with suppliers.
ISO 9001 supplier certification means that processes within the company follow
a certain quality management standard. Although it does not guarantee a certain
level of quality performance, the certification supports the enhancement of sup-
plier’s quality objectives, which in turn may improve the buyer’s quality perfor-
mance. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1: The quality performance of a buyer is higher when their key supplier is ISO
9001 certified compared to cases where the supplier is not ISO 9001 certified.

2.2.2 Performance Implications of ISO 14001

Environmental sustainability is a key and current concern for companies and recent
research has explored this topic at the supply chain level (Gualandris and
Kalchschmidt 2016; Wilhelm et al. 2016; Vanpoucke et al. 2014; Wiengarten et al.
2013). The volatile competitive environment has forced companies to rely on supply
chains to source materials, components, manufacturing process and other services.
This results in a greater dependency on suppliers and more attention is being given to
their contribution to the overall environmental sustainability of the supply chain
(Wilhelm et al. 2016). To respond to these pressures, many firms have invested in
environmental management systems, such as ISO 14001 (Nawrocka et al. 2009).
This standard is designed for companies to identify and establish the importance of
their environmental performance. Through the implementation of ISO 14001, firms
develop controls to manage their environmental impact and this enables them to
improve the use of natural resources and reduce negative externalities (Boiral and
Henri 2012). Similar to ISO 9001, the ISO 14001 standard does not guarantee
environmental excellence or compliance, but rather describes a system that will help
an organisation to achieve its environmental objectives. The expectation is that better
environmental management will result in improved environmental performance
(Curkovic and Sroufe 2011). The general finding of previous research on ISO 14001
is that certified companies report higher levels of environmental performance
however non-significant results do also exist (de Vries et al. 2012).
The motivations for implementing an environmental management system vary
(Campos et al. 2015; Wiengarten et al. 2013); these tend to be external factors such
as customers (Pagell et al. 2010; Gualandris and Kalchschmidt 2014), ethical
motivations (Bansal and Roth 2000; Lam et al. 2011), performance improvement
(Montabon et al. 2007; Arimura et al. 2016), compliance with legislation
(Blackman 2012; Gray et al. 2015), marketing and legitimating reasons (Boiral and
Henri 2012; Qi et al. 2013) and other intangible benefits (i.e. communication,
employee motivation) (Zutshi and Sohal 2004; Campos et al. 2015).
In this study we focus on the use of ISO 14001 implementation at the supply
chain level (buyer and supplier) as an approach for environmental performance
200 F. Wiengarten et al.

improvement. Firms that have implemented ISO 14001, need to address the envi-
ronmental aspects with their suppliers in order to improve the overall supply chain
performance (Nawrocka et al. 2009). The need for integration of the environmental
aspects in purchasing activities has been highlighted (Handfield et al. 2005) and the
ISO 14001 standard has been proposed as a management system for improving
environmental performance in the procurement process (Koplin et al. 2007; Chen
2005; Lee et al. 2009). Darnall et al. (2008) investigated the effect of environmental
certification on environmental supply chain activities and found that certified
companies were more likely to improve their environmental performance than the
non-certified companies. More recently, Arimura et al. (2011) reported that ISO
14001 certification promotes green supply chain management and certified com-
panies are 40% more likely to measure their suppliers’ environmental performance,
with in excess of 50% of companies being more likely to demand that their sup-
pliers follow specific environmental practices. Curkovic and Sroufe (2011) high-
lighted that through ISO 14001 certification firms can promote a sustainable supply
chain strategy and this can be leveraged throughout the supply chain resulting in a
competitive advantage. Furthermore, Chiarini (2012) analysed 18 companies that
used ISO 14001 standard requirements for improving the supply chain environ-
mental sustainability. The research used a five step approach through which the
supplier obtained the status of “green partner”. This approach allowed the buyer to
define a set of environmental performance indicators and manage the improvements
of the supplier. The overall effect of such collaboration was reported as strategic
and innovative, however no direct link to the buyer environmental performance was
assessed.
Given the global diffusion of ISO 14001 certified companies and the diverse
motivations for implementing environmental supply chain initiatives, the following
hypothesis is proposed:
H2: The environmental performance of a buyer is higher when their key supplier is
ISO 14001 certified compared to cases where the supplier is not ISO 14001
certified.

2.2.3 Performance Implications of OHSAS 18001

OHSAS 18001 is a formal external certification formulated by international certi-

fying bodies based on the British Standard 8800 (Qi et al. 2013) and it forms part of
the occupational health and safety management systems (OHSMS). This standard is
designed to help companies eliminate and minimise occupational health and safety
risks to employees and other stakeholders, as part of their social responsibility
(Fernández-Muñiz et al. 2012a, b; Bottani et al. 2009; Hohnen and Hasle 2011).
Abad et al. (2013) developed a taxonomy which suggests that there is a tendency
among researchers to focus on evaluating the OHSAS 18001 benefits in organi-
sations, and limited investigation has been done at the supply chain level.
Gualandris and Kalchschmidt (2016) used a sample of Italian manufacturing firms
A Supply Chain View on Certification Standards: Does Supply … 201

to explore how environmental and social (i.e., health and safety indicators) per-
formance of manufacturing companies can be improved through the development
of sustainable supply chain management practices. Their findings show that the
effect of external practices on manufacturing companies ‘sustainability performance
is fully mediated by the key supplier’s sustainability’. This raises the importance of
social sustainability standards such as OHSAS 18001, at the supply chain level and
how it influences the overall social sustainability performance.
Another example, where health and safety issues are a core value of the supply
chain is the Electricity Supply Board (ESB) Ireland. The supplier health and safety
performance is paramount for ESB as it affects directly their services offered to the
end-customer. The company uses a supplier charter to manage and control their
health and safety performance (ESB 2016). The company expects that the suppliers
provide a safe workplace for their employees in compliance with all applicable laws
and regulations. When working at ESB (or ESB customer) sites, suppliers are
expected to comply with all ESB Contractor Safety Regulations communicated to
them as well as any site-specific safety instructions given to them by ESB.
In several manufacturing sectors such as, food and textile, researchers have
highlighted the ethical and social responsibility that companies must consider when
outsourcing their production worldwide and the impact that this has on the supply
chain. For example, consumers have criticised apparel company NIKE in relation to
the use of sweatshop labour issues at its suppliers (Maloni and Brown 2006) and it
has had a negative impact on their corporate image. Lund-Thomsen and Lindgreen
(2014) assert that the social performance of suppliers affects the overall supply
chain performance and propose that companies develop cooperative initiatives for
managing social responsibility in global value chains. Therefore, certifications such
as OHSAS 18001, can provide a signalling effect that suppliers are emphasizing a
high degree of health and safety performance (Qi et al. 2013).
Based on the limited number of research papers and the practical examples
outlined above, our research asserts that OHSAS 18001 implementation at the
supply chain level (buyer and supplier) can lead to superior performance and the
following hypothesis is proposed:
H3: The occupational health and safety performance of a buyer is higher when their
key supplier is OHSAS 18001 certified compared to cases where the supplier is not
OHSAS 18001 certified.

3 Method

3.1 Data

To test the combined impact of buyer and key supplier certifications on perfor-
mance we collected data through a survey in Ireland. The level of analysis was the
manufacturing plant and the respondents were plant managers. These key
202 F. Wiengarten et al.

Table 2 Sample descriptives

Industry Frequency
Food and kindred products 8
Apparel and other finished products made from fabrics and similar materials 1
Chemicals and allied products 3
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products 7
Primary metal industries 4
Fabricated metal products, except machinery and transportation equipment 7
Industrial and commercial machinery and computer equipment 4
Electronic and other electrical equipment and components, except computer 8
equipment
Measuring, analysing, and controlling instruments; photographic, medical and 2
optical goods; watches and clocks
Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers 2
Manufacture of other transport equipment 3
Stone, clay, glass, and concrete products 2
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries 7
Total 59
Size Frequency Buyers’ Frequency Suppliers’ Frequency
Certifications Certifications
1–25 2 ISO 9001 46
26–100 15 ISO 14001 26
101–250 20 OHSAS 19
18001
251–500 11
501–1000 8
>1000 3

informants had the comprehensive knowledge related to the management and

operations of the plant and they were advised to supplement this with input from
other functions, where appropriate. The majority of the data was collected elec-
tronically via email. Other methods were used as well, such as telephone, mail and
face-to-face interviews. Table 2 provides an overview of the dataset in terms of
industry sector, company size and certification frequency. The data was collected at
the end of 2014 and early 2015. The population chosen for this research was that of
manufacturing plants in Ireland within the industry classification codes of SIC 27
and SIC 38 employing twenty or more people. The size of the population was
established from a number of databases, including Kompass Ireland, the Industrial
Development Authority and Enterprise Ireland. Given the SIC codes, 500 compa-
nies were identified and the response rate of just over 12% is satisfactory and in
alignment with recent survey research in the operations management domain.
A Supply Chain View on Certification Standards: Does Supply … 203

3.2 Measures

Operations performance was measured across the selected dimensions of quality,

environmental and health and safety performance (Shin et al. 2000; Rosenzweig
and Roth 2004; Pagell et al. 2014). Respondents were prompted to indicate their
plant’s performance compared to their major competitors. The scale ranged from
one to seven where one means far worse, four means similar and seven far better
(see Table 3).
Quality performance was measured using two items with regards to product
performance and product conformance to customer specifications. Environmental
performance was measured through prompting the respondents to indicate the
extent to which your plant has performed from an environmental perspective during
the past two years. The scale ranged from one to seven where one means not at all,
four means to some extent seven to a great extent. Four items are used to represent
the environmental performance dimension (see Table 3). Occupational health and
safety performance was measured through the same scale as used for the envi-
ronmental dimension. Again four items were used to represent this performance
dimension, which are also listed in Table 3.
Buyer certification was measured through binary questions prompting the
respondents to indicate “Has your plant obtained any of the following certifica-
tions?” (ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001). Furthermore, we asked the buyer
to indicate the certification status of their key suppliers through prompting

Table 3 Construct measurement items

Items Mean SD Factor Alpha
loading values
Quality performance 5.42 .852 .719
Product performance .603
Product conformance to customer specifications .923
Environmental performance 4.58 1.344 .886
We have reduced energy use in our facilities .784
We have reduced water use in our facilities .802
We have reduced waste at our facilities .750
We have reduced emissions at of our facilities .783
Occupational health and safety performance 4.94 1.174 .953
We have reduced the number of .844
occupational-related accidents at our facilities
We have reduced the number of .928
occupational-related injuries at our facilities
We have reduced occupational-related ill health at .870
our facilities
We have reduced the number of .831
occupational-related insurance claims at our
facilities
204 F. Wiengarten et al.

“Considering your key supplier (in terms of strategic importance for your most
important product line). To the best of your knowledge which of the following
certifications do they possesses?”.
Furthermore, we controlled for company size through number of employees. All
latent variables are listed in Table 3.

3.3 Construct Validation

We conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to validate our measures and to

confirm our proposed factor structure (using SPSS 20 for this and subsequent
analyses). We decided on conducting EFA instead of confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) because of our relatively small sample size. Various scholars have called for
having at least 100 (e.g., Kline 1979) or 150 (Hutcheson and Sofroniou 1999) cases
to conduct CFA. Thus, we acknowledge that our measures are established and their
factor structure has been confirmed in previous research. But recognize the limi-
tations of our data set and thus conducted EFA. Specifically, we conducted prin-
ciple axis factoring along with varimax rotation. As expected the EFA converged in
a three-factor solution in terms of quality, environmental and occupational health
and safety performance.
Results presented in Table 3 indicate relatively high factor loadings with the
lowest value of .603. This can be interpreted as an initial indicator of the validity of
our identified factor structure (Nunnally 1978). Furthermore, no cross-loadings
were detected in our solution. The initial eigenvalue for the quality performance
factor was 5.074, the environmental performance factor 1.679 and for the occu-
pational health and safety performance factor 1.408. Resulting in a cumulative
percentage of the initial values of 81.62%. The cumulative parentage of the rotation
sums of squared loadings resulted in 73.57%. These are also further signs of
construct validity.
Finally, Cronbach’s alpha (a) has been used to test for reliability. The
Cronbach’s alpha values listed in Table 3 are all above the commonly accepted
level of .7, which indicates that reliability is satisfactory. Based on the above
analyses, the validity and reliability of our scales were established.
Table 4 presents the Pearson correlation between the composite score of our
explored factor structure. We will continue our analyses using the composite score
to test our hypotheses.

3.4 Common Method Variance Bias

We test for common method bias through conducting the Harman’s one-factor test
(Podsakoff et al. 2003). Thus we loaded all items on a non-specified factor in an
un-rotated factor structure. The first factor accounts for 50.74% of variance, and the
 A Supply Chain View on Certification Standards: Does Supply …
Table 4 Correlations
Variables (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Buyer’s ISO 9001 certification (1) 1
Buyer’s ISO 14001 certification (2) .448** 1
Buyer’s OHSAS 18001 certification (3) .346** .772** 1
Supplier’s ISO 9001 certification (4) .632** .289* .221 1
Supplier’s ISO 14001 certification (5) .129 .700** .513** .402** 1
Supplier’s OHSAS 18001 certification (6) .283* .600** .762** .262* .651** 1
Quality performance (7) −.486** −.194 −.116 −.388** −.230 −.153 1
Environmental performance (8) −.005 .331* .328* −.036 .295* .223 .011 1
Occupational health and safety performance .186 .422** .312* .255 .425** .326* −.080 .530** 1
(9)
Size (10) −.052 .051 .091 .101 .318* .348** −.118 .184 .211
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

205
206 F. Wiengarten et al.

other items load on different factors. Thus, we expect that common method variance
does not pose a threat to our data.

4 Results

To test our three hypotheses, we conducted a one-way analysis of variance

(ANOVA). Specifically, we calculated three models to determine the effects of joint
ISO 9001 (i.e., buyer and supplier are certified) on quality performance, joint ISO
14001 (i.e., buyer and supplier are certified) on environmental performance and
joint OHSAS 18001 (i.e., buyer and supplier are certified) on occupational health
and safety performance. Thus, the dependent variables were the three performance
dimensions for each certification (i.e., quality, environmental, and occupational
health and safety performance) and the fixed factors were the certification (i.e., ISO
9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001). In Table 5 we report the performance differ-
ences for joint certification versus non-joint certification (i.e., supplier is not
certified).
In Table 6 we report the results of the ANOVA test for our quality model.
Results indicate a statistical difference between the two groups (F = 16.200;
p = .000). However, contrary to our hypothesis one having both buyer and the
supplier ISO 9001 certified leads to significantly lower quality (Quality
Mean = 5.18) performance levels as if only the buyer would be certified (Quality
Mean = 6.10).

Table 5 Cross-Tab: certifications and performance

Certification/performance Joint ISO Joint ISO Joint OHSAS
9001/non-joint 14001/non-joint 18001/non-joint
9001 14001 18001
Quality performance (mean; 5.18; .779/6.10;
SD) .686
Environmental performance 5.14; 1.20/4.19;
(mean; SD) 1.31
Occupational health and 5.59; 1.11/4.70;
safety performance (mean; 1.11
SD)

Table 6 ISO 9001 ANOVA results

ISO 9001/quality performance Sum of squares Mean square F Sig.
Between groups 9.289 9.289 16.200 .000
Within groups 32.112 .573
Total 41.401
A Supply Chain View on Certification Standards: Does Supply … 207

Table 7 ISO 14001 ANOVA results

ISO 14001/environmental performance Sum of squares Mean square F Sig.
Between groups 12.930 12.930 8.022 .006
Within groups 91.875 1.612
Total 104.805

Table 8 OHSAS 18001 ANOVA results

OHSAS 18001/occupational health and safety Sum of Mean F Sig.
performance squares square
Between groups 9.122 9.122 7.339 .009
Within groups 70.851 1.243
Total 79.972

In Table 7 we report the results of the ANOVA test for our environmental
model. Results indicate a statistical difference between the two groups (F = 8.022;
p = .006). These results confirm our second hypothesis. Having both, buyers and
the suppliers ISO 14001 certified leads to significantly higher environmental
(Environmental Mean = 5.14) performance levels as if only the buyer would be
certified (Environmental Mean = 4.19).
In Table 8 we report the results of the ANOVA test for our occupational health
and safety model. Results indicate a statistical difference between the two groups
(F = 7.339; p = .009). These results confirm our second hypothesis. Having both,
buyers and the suppliers OHSAS 18001 certified leads to significantly higher
occupational health and safety (Occupational Health and Safety Mean = 5.59)
performance levels as if only the buyer would be certified (Occupational Health and
Safety Mean = 4.70).
Thus, in concluding our empirical results we find that two of our three proposed
hypotheses are supported (H2 and H3). We will discuss these results in the fol-
lowing sections in terms of their managerial and theoretical implications.

5 Discussion

The results confirm the hypotheses regarding environmental and occupational

health and safety certifications and performance at the supply chain level. The
results indicate that when both, suppliers and buyers, are simultaneously certified
the performance levels are significantly higher compared to cases where solely the
buyer is certified. However, with regards to ISO 9001 and quality performance our
results did not confirm the initial hypothesis one. Being ISO 9001 certified at the
supplier and buyer side does not significantly improve the buyers’ quality perfor-
mance. Indeed the results indicate that this has no significant impact on quality
performance.
208 F. Wiengarten et al.

In attempting to explain the support for the two hypotheses related to ISO 14001
(H2) and OSHSAS 18001 (H3) and no support for the hypothesis which investi-
gated ISO 9001 (H1), the institutional theory can be consulted. It could be argued
that ISO 9001 certification was viewed by firms as a way to differentiate themselves
from competitors. In other words, it was as an order-winning criterion. It has been
suggested by Cole (1998) that suppliers may consider quality certification as a
primary tool in signalling their credentials to customers. However, given that the
standard is well embedded within many organisations, it has become an essential
requirement for many customers. Hence, suppliers may be tempted to view the
implications of certification from a superficial perspective (Dick 2000), rather than
promoting good quality practices. This anomaly between the external certification
requirements and the internal organisational quality practices may result in a dis-
connect, with the standard being implemented simply to comply with institutional
pressures.
According to institutional theory, early adopters of a process standard are
motivated by the technical efficiency provided by the standard, while late adopters
are motivated more by the symbolic value that the standard represents (Meyer and
Rowan 1977). As ISO 9001 is increasingly institutionalised, organisations could
invoke the socially legitimate goal of ISO 9001 certification without being dedi-
cated to its principles (Westphal et al. 1997). Based on this institutional effect,
organizations signal their compliance with institutional demands through symbolic
adoption alone and rigorous implementation becomes unnecessary (Guler et al.
2002). The implication is that this would negatively impact performance.
Turning to ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001, from an institutional perspective,
certification helps supplier firms signal legitimacy to major customers (Staw and
Epstein 2000). Previous research showed that ISO 9001 was adopted partially for
legitimating reasons (Qi et al. 2011); hence it is likely that OHSAS and ISO 14001
certification would have a similar effect. OHSAS 18001 and ISO 14001 are
interpreted as a signal of a firm’s commitment to health and safety and/or envi-
ronmental management. Given the increasing demand for organisations to at least
appear to meet expectations about health and safety and the environment, such
pressure could be a powerful driver toward certification.
However, if this perspective is correct, then it is unlikely that operational per-
formance would remain unchanged as a result of certification to OHSAS 18001
and/or ISO 14001. In other words, if we consider the questionnaire there would be
no improvement in environmental performance due to reductions in energy, water
use, waste and emissions. Nor would there be health and safety improvements due to
reductions in accidents, injuries, ill health and insurance claims. The improvements
in performance, when buyers and suppliers have environmental and/or health and
safety certification are evident given the positive results for H2 and H3. This study
contributes to the overall certification literature by showing that ISO 14001 and
OHSAS 18001 that are premised on developing production systems processes that
can deliver significant increases in operational performance (Weick et al. 1999).
Another reason that might explain the negative performance results for ISO
9001, is that OHSAS 18001 and ISO 14001 require a much wider stakeholder base
A Supply Chain View on Certification Standards: Does Supply … 209

relative to ISO 9001. The ISO 9001 standard tends to focus on customers and
satisfying their requirements. The other two standards, on the other hand, need to
consider the influence of stakeholders from customers to society at large. Given the
higher level of scrutiny that this entails, the implication is that this leads to
improved performance in terms of environment and occupational health and safety
for buyers and suppliers (Castka and Balzarova 2008).
From a management perspective, the results suggest that certified suppliers have
an important role to play in the buyer-supplier relationship, particularly with regard
to improving environmental and occupational health and safety performance.
However, for buyer organisations this may involve active investment in the supply
base, particularly smaller suppliers. For example, Nawrocka et al. (2009) reports
procurement managers in several organisations providing training and expert
knowledge to their supply base. Such measures improved their environmental
awareness and prepared the suppliers for more advanced work, such as working
towards ISO 14001 or OHSAS 18001 certification. At the same time, companies
may wish to focus their resources on more strategically important suppliers during
the certification process. Arimura et al. (2011) provides examples of companies
investing in modifications to the production line of strategic suppliers into improve
environmental and health and safety performance. This is supported by Klassen and
Vachon (2003), who found that closer relations to suppliers concerning product
related activities were connected to higher tendencies for cooperation on environ-
mental and social issues.
It should also be noted that even though the results would appear to suggest that
there is no performance benefit for firms from having ISO 9001 certification, having
in place quality management processes and practices should make it easier for
buyers and suppliers to implement other standards, such as, ISO 14001 and OSHAS
18001, as they require similar infrastructure and knowledge requirements (Curkovic
et al. 2000).
There are a number of limitations with the current study. Firstly, it was country
specific and focused on Ireland. Future work should extend the research to consider
other jurisdictions. Secondly, it would be useful, given the increased attention to
integrated management systems to consider the complementary effect of multiple
standards on performance. Thirdly, related to the small sample size it was not
feasible to test for the possible confounding implications of industry on our results.
However, we do solely include manufacturing firms in our sample. Finally, the
study considered three meta-standards, future work could look at other certification
programmes, such as ISO 26000 on social responsibility.

6 Conclusion

In recent years, firms have implemented quality (ISO 9001), environmental (14001)
and occupational health and safety (OHSAS 18001) management standards, in
order to remain competitive and meet their stakeholders’ objectives. As these
210 F. Wiengarten et al.

standards mature there is a movement by firms to encourage suppliers along the

supply chain to consider their implementation. The current study has tried to pro-
vide some guidance with regard to the relationship between perceived performance
and the three standards outlined above, particularly with regard to its impact on
suppliers. The institutional theory perspective suggests that certification may be
considered mainly as a signalling device. However, the results only provide support
for this contention with regard to ISO 9001 certification, but appear to be less
important for ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001. This implies that these two certifi-
cations have had more than just ceremonial benefits and can provide a mechanism
for enhanced environmental and health and safety performance.

References

Abad J, Dalmau I, Vilajosana J (2014) Taxonomic proposal for integration levels of management
systems based on empirical evidence and derived corporate benefits. J Clean Prod 78(1):164–
173
Abad J, Lafuente E, Vilajosana J (2013) An assessment of the OHSAS 18001 certification process:
objective drivers and consequences on safety performance and labour productivity. Saf Sci
60:47–56
Arimura TH, Darnall N, Ganguli R, Katayama H (2016) The effect of ISO 14001 on
environmental performance: resolving equivocal findings. J Environ Manage 166:556–566
Arimura TH, Darnall N, Katayama H (2011) Is ISO 14001 a gateway to more advanced voluntary
action? The case of green supply chain management. J Environ Econ Manage 61(2):170–182
Arimura TH, Hibiki A, Katayama H (2008) Is a voluntary approach an effective environmental
policy instrument? A case for environmental management systems. J Environ Econ Manage 55
(3):281–295
Bansal P, Roth K (2000) Why companies go green: a model of ecological responsiveness. Acad
Manage J 43(4):717–736
Barla P (2007) ISO 14001 certification and environmental performance in Quebec’s pulp and
paper industry. J Environ Econ Manage 53(3):291–306
Benner MJ, Veloso FM (2008) ISO 9000 practices and financial performance: a technology
coherence perspective. J Oper Manage 26(5):611–629
Bernardo M, Casadesus M, Karapetrovic S, Heras I (2009) How integrated are environmental,
quality and other standardized management systems? An empirical study. J Clean Prod 17
(8):742–750
Blackman A (2012) Does eco-certification boost regulatory compliance in developing countries?
ISO 14001 in Mexico. J Regul Econ 42(3):242–263
Boiral O, Henri JF (2012) Modelling the impact of ISO 14001 on environmental performance: a
comparative approach. J Environ Manage 99:84–97
Bottani E, Monica L, Vignali G (2009) Safety management systems: performance differences
between adopters and non-adopters. Saf Sci 47(2):155–162
Burgen S, Phillips T (2011) Zara Accused in Brazil Sweatshop Inquiry [Online]. Available: http://
www.theguardian.com/world/2011/aug/18/zara-brazil-sweatshop-accusation [Accessed
22/04/2016]
Campos LM, de Melo Heizen DA, Verdinelli MA, Miguel PAC (2015) Environmental
performance indicators: a study on ISO 14001 certified companies. J Clean Prod 99:286–296
Chang J.I. and Liang C.L. (2009), “Performance evaluation of process safety management systems
of paint manufacturing facilities”, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Vol.
22 No., pp. 398–402